- Condemnation of torture (AG-nominee Holder) implies a return to law. We wrote the Geneva Convention; Congress ratified it, making it US law; Code of Military Justice incorporates it. Bush lawyers Woo and Addington dismissed Geneva and the advice of the JAGs of US Army and Navy.

- Obama statement of Freedom of Information / secrecy promises more open workings of government.

Even as a political scientist, I don't really put as much stock into issues as I do to character.

Issues that are talked about in the campaign will change, new ones will come up, etc.

What I care about is character and ability, I think Obama has a lot of both.

He's a smart man who I trust to make good decisions for the country and act within the constitution.

He taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious universities in America, (heck, he even knows the constitution better than the Chief Justice, or so it would seem)

Also to answer Irn-Bru's question... I do think he'll decrease military presence... but it would take time. Initially I think he'll re-distribute soldiers to Afghanistan from Iraq and resume the search for Bin Laden while helping the people there establish a working government.

It may take him a second term to really decrease military presence abroad but that's the overall goal.

"Guess [Ryan Kerrigan] really does have a good motor. And is relentless. And never quits on a play. And just keeps coming. And probably eats Wheaties and drinks Apple Pie smoothies and shaves with Valvoline." -Dan Steinberg DC Sports Bog

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only warrantless wiretapping I saw was for outside the US and not in the jurisdiction of the Constitution. You call Yemen, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Trying to split hairs over I expect Yemen to monitor but not the US when I call terrorist nations is BS. Their either is or isn't an expectation of privacy. And again the jurisdiction isn't there. My biggest issue with Bush was holding US citizens w/o trial, that one's enumerated in the bill of rights.

In fact, NSA has acknowledged that it's been used in purely domestic contacts:

The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a US person. It was later disclosed that some of the intercepts included communications were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.

Let alone the whole issue regarding Bush's stance that this wasn't subject to FISA, a law passed by Congress in 1978 to prevent exactly this kind of crap.

It's emblematic of Bush's stance. He'd issue executive orders, and then assume they had the power and force above already enacted and long-standing statutory law. And they clearly don't. What, the law actually applies to my programs? No way; I AM THE LAW.

With apologies to Judge Dredd, of course.

I don't expect Kazoo to pay attention to this because of the source (a logical fallacy), but I found this revealing (well, in the sense of uncovering what we already knew was likely):

Yeesh. This is such big brother crap. The intrusion on our civil liberties truly astounds me. I mean even if the NSA actually limited themselves to the warrantless wiretapping in accordance with Bush's order, if I called or e-mailed my relatives in Italy, they could monitor my phone calls or e-mail. Because there wasn't any sort of restriction to "Yemen" or whatever...it was just foreign communication. And that's ridiculous, since we're a country of immigrants; presumably, a large number of US citizens have people to contact outside of the United States. AND ALL OF THOSE CALLS COULD BE MONITORED...IF the NSA limited its conduct to monitoring only to the language of Bush's order. And as the link shows...they did not.

Right, IF they "reasonably suspect" I have ties to terrorist networks. To me, that is basically no limit at all. I mean hell, that decision has absolutely no oversight whatsoever; and we've seen how far government agencies have taken power without oversight.

The Washington Post reported on August 24, 2005 that fifteen Uyghurs had been determined to be "No longer enemy combatants" (NLEC) after all.[2] The Post reported that detainees who had been classified as NLEC were, not only still being incarcerated, but were still being shackled to the floor. Five of these Uyghurs, who had filed for writs of habeas corpus, were transported to Albania on May 5, 2006 just prior to a scheduled judicial review of their petitions. As of June 22, 2008, seventeen Uyghur men remain incarcerated at Guantanamo. Two years ago, an Administrative Review Board declared all but one to be "approved for release." The Pentagon had previously determined, reportedly as early as 2003, that the Uyghurs should be released. They continue to be incarcerated.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Issues that are talked about in the campaign will change...

And THAT'S change we can believe in.

What I care about is character and ability, I think Obama has a lot of both.

...at least that is the image 50% of the country's voters (and Kenya's voters, too) were sold on. Behind the scenes, he is truly "more of the same". For someone who ran on the premise of being a reformer, he tends to do things just like any other politician.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Well first of all, you realize those articles could have been written by crazyrhorse1. I read the start of both and neither began with domestic wiretapping, they both described international wiretapping. If you can point me to where they get to the domestic I'll consider that.

Yeesh, you didn't have to read too far in to get to it. The point is that the programs were intended for international use, but as there is no freaking oversight on the NSA because of this exec order, they were used for domestic wiretaps. But I know, OMG 9/11!!!!

I could dig out more sources (like the original NYT article), but your post simply says that to me that you're not interested in reading more about things I post; even though you want to argue about them. I.e., you're completely unwilling to learn something new. That leads me to one conclusion...why do I bother with you? I'm done here.

Go ahead and feel free to rant away about Obama, and the actions he may take.

I'm trying to work out the logic of this statement. First of all, I pointed out this is Wiki, it's written by anyone. It could have been written by the most partisan of Democrats, even JSPB22. There is no accountability at all.

Second, I stated my view is this is a red herring argument. In reality, both parties have had the same policies regarding Iraq, Oil for Blood, meddling in the middle east and other countries affairs in general, warrantless wiretapping (google Clinton on this). So my view is this is NOT the real issue. I stated my view is actually changing our Middle East policy is the REAL issue. So instead of dealing with my views which makes the links irrelevant as well as without accountability, you demanded I debate a red herring. Isn't that the intent of a red herring by definition, to divert attention to the real issue?

So OK, despite the absence of credible evidence, I will totally concede that Bush is a bastard who committed endless acts of domestic warrantless wiretapping. You win this point, I have addressed it. Now address my points that:

- Both parties are in the middle east for oil, the democrats in particular screaming for endless cheap gas provided by the government

- Both parties are creating enemies by meddling in other country's affairs and that is the real threat to our life and driving the intrusions of liberty

- Bush's policies were not new, Clinton had the same ones

- Both parties in the Congress and Senate are overseeing the process of undercutting our privacy and have abdicated real responsiblity in the issue to debate this one thing.

- The Democrats in particular who claim to deeply believe in privacy from the government are advocating the government assign us a number and track every dollar we earn, donate, invest. They support the drug war and endless invasion of our privacy in all banking transactions. And now they want the government to control their access to health and know every detail about their medical history as the government is the single payer. If the Democrats have ANY modicum of concern for privacy then I'll go to the White House and blow Obama.

In the Middle East, use of the military and this issue of warrantless wiretapping regarding privacy this is a relatively tiny issue. BOTH parties focus on it to divert people from dealing with the real issues. I HAVE addressed your point.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

welch wrote:- Condemnation of torture (AG-nominee Holder) implies a return to law. We wrote the Geneva Convention; Congress ratified it, making it US law; Code of Military Justice incorporates it. Bush lawyers Woo and Addington dismissed Geneva and the advice of the JAGs of US Army and Navy.

- Obama statement of Freedom of Information / secrecy promises more open workings of government.

Both hopeful signs.

Well, standing behind a major tax cheat to head treasury's not a good start...

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Thanks! I'm sick of here are two links to endless unaccountable wiki articles as "proof" of a point I'd already said is a red herring argument, which is ignored. Pulp has a way to go to catch my old bud ATV in the link wars though. Man, the guy could vomit links...

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't expect Kazoo to pay attention to this because of the source (a logical fallacy), but I found this revealing (well, in the sense of uncovering what we already knew was likely)

That's not really what I said though. I'm tired of these gotcha games. When you look at middle east policy the differences are minor. When you look at wiretapping and law enforcement violations of our privacy the differences are minor. When you look at the real violations of our personal privacy, this is dwarfed by the IRS every day, the drug war every day, the Social Security Administration and Medicare every day. And you add single payer medical care and that would make this look like a grain of sand in the grand canyon regarding our privacy.

Actually this whole topic is something that the Obama election has in particular given me an insight to. The incredible focus of the media and both parties on non-issues. Get people to debate that and they ignore the REAL issues. Not that the thought was new to me, but it's really been a spotlight on that and I'm going to be arguing that a lot more and the nits a lot less. We are arguing nits. That doesn't mean they should be ignored, it means they shouldn't be the focus. And that's what the nits are now, the focus.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

So Pulp, to continue with the privacy thing on warrantless wiretapping, if privacy is the issue, besides the IRS, war on drugs, massive Social Security and Medicare programs and proposed single payer, I was thinking of ENDLESS privacy issues. If that's the objective, consider some more.

- If you want to DIE you have no privacy protection, it's illegal.

- You have no privacy to decide to put the drugs of your choice in your own body

- A man and a woman have no privacy when agreeing to trade sex for money

- Try renting a space and selling hats, do you have any idea how much the government requires you to complete and disclose to them?

- You have no privacy right to chose a medical doctor of your own unless government OK's them.

- You have no privacy right to chose a lawyer to represent you unless government OK's them.

- You have no privacy right to chose someone to trim your nails, cut your hair or decorate your house

- You have no privacy right to buy a car from Ford or any other manufacturer, the government forces you to go through a dealer

- You have no privacy to agree to work for a company for a wage of your own choosing

- You have no privacy to grow drugs on your own property

That the Left is concerned about "privacy" violations in the name of protecting the American people while ignoring why we are a target, their own role in that and their hypocrisy dripping demands for cheap gas while being OK with government tracking every dollar we make and how we use it for taxes, every banking and cash transaction for the Drug War and they want a single payer where the government will have every detail of our health as well is just laughable. I don't think you're arguing it to help the Left, I think they are just leading you by the nose like the rest of the country in this complete red herring of an issue.

But Kaz, sure we're ignoring the root cause, the massive privacy invasions of our bodies and wallets and daily intrusion into our lives, but don't you get it? The GOVERNMENT could listen to a phone call trying to stop terrorism! Now THAT should scare you! Right.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Kaz, let's just leave it at this. I find those "intrusions/restrictions" to be less of a concern than the Government being able to tap any of my communications (e-mail, phone, etc.) on little suspicion and without any oversight, and being able to detain people without cause.

For example, I seriously don't mind a licensure requirement for professions (I hold 2 licenses to practice health care and law, so I'm intimately familiar with it). In every case, obtaining a license is a bare minimum floor of competancy; without such a requirement, any old schmo could hold themselves out as competant to perform surgery or law, and the people in the end who would be damaged would be their patients/clients.

Another is that I don't mind a restriction against drugs. I have a license to prescribe medication, and I understand pharmacology and pharmacokinetics. Many of the drugs that are prescription only, or restricted as Scheduled drugs, have side effects and drug-to-drug interactions that require oversight. Now, you can argue where the line should be drawn (i.e., I think it's ridiculous that marijuana is considered in the same line as heroin), but you have to draw a line somewhere. An example why I don't mind drug restrictions: I don't trust barely literate Joe America to do his due diligence on medication before he takes it. However, I trust a licensed prescriber to do so.

Also, I'm a bit confused:

You have no privacy right to chose someone to trim your nails, cut your hair or decorate your house

The last time I wanted to get my hair cut, I was able to choose who cut my hair. I've even gotten my wife to cut my hair. Likewise, I was able to hire the painter I wanted to, and my wife and I have painted my house as well. I'm not sure what you mean here.

You have no privacy right to buy a car from Ford or any other manufacturer, the government forces you to go through a dealer

Is that a law or is that just the way that car companies work (I honestly don't know)?

You have no privacy to agree to work for a company for a wage of your own choosing

What does that mean? You negotiate your salary when you hire on...or at least I have.

Also, many of these restrictions you've listed are not Federal restrictions, but state ones (i.e., licensure is purely a state issue; I'm barred to practice law in MD and DC, there are no federal licenses to practice law or medicine. Employment law is overwhelmingly at the state level.)

The car dealer rules are also largely state rules, they prevent manufacturers from selling directly, they have to use a dealer. I agree it's insane but it's more cronyism than some assault on our rights. I'd like to see it changed, for the record.

Kaz, gotta say that much of your "privacy" argument is a red herring. The bulk of your examples are areas which are regulated by state governments. Even the most ardent Constitutional constructionist or literalist will concur that those are areas which the Federal government has no business regulating, but states are free to regulate. That states require licensure for Doctors, Lawyers, even plumbers and electricians, is not only within their rights, but a required function of STATE government.

The problem occurs when the Feds stick their noses where they have no Constitutional permission to tread... declaring certain drugs illegal, and federal bans on laws restricting abortions.

I am not anti abortion (which is not the same thing as being "pro-abortion"... I find the practice reprehensible and the ultimate liberal hypocracy)... however, I do believe that the Federal Government has no authority to require that states permit it, and the Supreme Court has perverted the Constitution in stating that it does. If my state bans abortions, and I don't like it, there is a mechanism for me to change that... it's called the "Ballot Box". Any court which assumes the authority to take into it's own hands the determination of right or wrong in this case is not only erroneous, but, in my opinion, criminally in violation of the US Constitution. They should have been impeached, and ejected from their positions. The Congress of the United States is in violation of their oaths every time they fail to remove judges for cause when they assume authority that they DO NOT HAVE. Ultimately, the failure is on the citizens for their failure to act responsibly to protect their Constitution at the ballot box, by removing federal legislators who do not act according to their oaths.

The Tenth amendment means nothing to the Supremes. If you are not going to comply with it, at least have the guts to overturn it through the deliniated process, not through these arrogant and illegal short cuts which violate my rights as a citizen.

Do not forget, the function of the Constitution is not to "grant" the rights of states and citizens, but to deliniate and limit the authortity of the Federal government. Any authority not granted the Federal government by the Constitution DOES NOT EXIST, AND CANNOT BE ASSUMED by the Federal government. If libs want the Feds to have a power it is not Constitutionally authorized, there is a process to change that. Why do they not use it?